Get Automatic SSL subscription

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it explicitly states credentials are NOT exposed here, that setup continues in a two-factor-protected external portal, and that certificates:read is required — auth scope and data-exposure limits that the annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by result semantics and the permission requirement; no filler. The middle sentence is dense and slightly convoluted but every clause carries operational meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value context; it does explain the key state=active + credentials_available=true combination and that no credentials are returned. It still doesn't sketch the broader subscription shape, but for a simple single-read tool with full annotation coverage that gap is modest.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (UUID format and provenance from list_automatic_ssl_subscriptions). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail for the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb and resource ('Read one customer-owned Automatic SSL subscription'), including the single-item scope that separates it from list_automatic_ssl_subscriptions and from the mutating siblings (refresh_, cancel_, replace_automatic_ssl_domain). An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a prerequisite ('Requires certificates:read') and explains how to read the result, but never names when to prefer this over list_automatic_ssl_subscriptions, list_automatic_ssl_actions, or refresh_automatic_ssl_subscription, and gives no when-not condition. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.